Para leer una página en español, haga clic en el siguiente menú:
Yes! You can refuse the Standards-Based Assessments, PARCC, and other standardized tests in elementary and middle schools (and, yes, high schools) in New Mexico. The state law says that students must take tests. However, there are currently two ways that parents can keep their children from participating in this unnecessary, harmful, and poorly utilized test.
Refusing the test sends a strong message that you understand the truths behind what they are, what they mean, what they're for, and what they mean for the future of our communities, our state, our country, and (most importantly) our kids.
There is always an up side and a down side to every choice. I want to list those here.
Pros and Cons of Refusing the State Test
First, the good stuff. By refusing the PARCC, Standards-Based Assessments and state-mandated "measures of growth," you are telling the New Mexico Public Education Department, Governor Susana Martinez, and Hanna Skandera these important messages:
But, since Hanna Skandera and her bosses are dead-set on making sure at least 95% of NM students participate, they have decided to try to either coerce or threaten you, the teachers, and the schools into taking these nonsense tests. Here are the cons to refusing, courtesy of New Mexico PED:
According to the NCLB Waiver (which means that the Federal government wants states to find some kind of punishment), if over 5% of students refuse to take the tests, the school's letter grade will drop one letter. In other words, if your school is currently a "C" school, and 5% or more of its students refuse the test, that school may ultimately receive a "D" rating. This is pure intimidation and coercion. There is no logical or utilitarian reason for this. This is simply a scare tactic used by the United States DOE and in all state waivers and Race to the Top applications. You know what will happen if enough schools getting lower ratings under this rule? The press will pay attention, and we'll start making some serious noise. The school grading system is invalid, as shown by many studies over the past few years. It's time to let PED know that.
- You can claim a medical exemption. Note that this is only for medical emergency. The State expects even medically fragile students to take all state tests.
- You can exercise your right as a parent to refuse participation. See the resources tab for information about how to do this.
Refusing the test sends a strong message that you understand the truths behind what they are, what they mean, what they're for, and what they mean for the future of our communities, our state, our country, and (most importantly) our kids.
There is always an up side and a down side to every choice. I want to list those here.
Pros and Cons of Refusing the State Test
First, the good stuff. By refusing the PARCC, Standards-Based Assessments and state-mandated "measures of growth," you are telling the New Mexico Public Education Department, Governor Susana Martinez, and Hanna Skandera these important messages:
- You know that the EoCs and PARCC do not assist in or change the course of instruction for your child
- You know that the EoCs and PARCC do not paint a reliable or valid picture of your child's achievement in school
- You know that the EoCs and PARCC are not useful to your child's teacher(s) for informing future instruction
- You know that these tests are at least half of a teacher's evaluation and 90% of a school's evaluation, and you know that's irresponsible and simplistic
- You know that your child and all other children are not the same, and should not treated as such by these tests
- You know that these tests do not truly reflect what your child (or any other child) has learned, and they certainly do not effectively measure their teachers' job performance
- You know that these tests are aligned with standards that have not been field-tested, have no research backing, and were not developed by educators or K-12 education experts
- You know that these tests measure affluence more than student learning, and that poverty rate is tightly correlated with achievement test scores
- You know that these tests are very expensive, and will become more so in the near future
- You know that the school is not allowed to intimidate or belittle your child for refusing; in fact, they are required to provide appropriate alternative activities during the test
But, since Hanna Skandera and her bosses are dead-set on making sure at least 95% of NM students participate, they have decided to try to either coerce or threaten you, the teachers, and the schools into taking these nonsense tests. Here are the cons to refusing, courtesy of New Mexico PED:
According to the NCLB Waiver (which means that the Federal government wants states to find some kind of punishment), if over 5% of students refuse to take the tests, the school's letter grade will drop one letter. In other words, if your school is currently a "C" school, and 5% or more of its students refuse the test, that school may ultimately receive a "D" rating. This is pure intimidation and coercion. There is no logical or utilitarian reason for this. This is simply a scare tactic used by the United States DOE and in all state waivers and Race to the Top applications. You know what will happen if enough schools getting lower ratings under this rule? The press will pay attention, and we'll start making some serious noise. The school grading system is invalid, as shown by many studies over the past few years. It's time to let PED know that.
Disclaimer: The information contained herein is for informational purposes only as a service to the public, and is not legal advice or a substitute for legal counsel, nor does it constitute advertising or a solicitation.
The information contained in this website may or may not reflect the most current legal developments; accordingly, information on this website is not promised or guaranteed to be correct or complete, and should not be considered an indication of future results. The authors expressly disclaim all liability in respect to actions taken or not taken based on any or all the contents of this website. As legal advice must be tailored to the specific circumstances of each case, nothing provided herein should be used as a substitute for advice of competent counsel.
The materials on this website do not constitute legal advice.
The information contained in this website may or may not reflect the most current legal developments; accordingly, information on this website is not promised or guaranteed to be correct or complete, and should not be considered an indication of future results. The authors expressly disclaim all liability in respect to actions taken or not taken based on any or all the contents of this website. As legal advice must be tailored to the specific circumstances of each case, nothing provided herein should be used as a substitute for advice of competent counsel.
The materials on this website do not constitute legal advice.